The Appeal CommissionThe Workers Compensation Act of Manitoba

Preamble

The worker is appealing the decision made by the Workers Compensation Board ("WCB") that their claim is not acceptable. A hearing was held on August 5, 2025 to consider the worker's appeal.

Issue

Whether or not the claim is acceptable.

Decision

The claim is not acceptable.

Background

The worker filed a Worker Incident Report with the WCB on May 7, 2020 reporting a psychological injury that occurred at work on October 1, 2013. In the notes section, the worker detailed incidents that had occurred between themselves and a coworker, they described as "demeaning and aggressive", since 2013 and noted on November 5, 2014, they had a "blowup" with this coworker that resulted in an investigation and eventually, they were terminated from their employment on November 26, 2014. The worker noted that, at the time of the November 5, 2014 incident, they were having a depressive episode and they were subjected to bullying by the coworker. The employer submitted an Employer's Accident Report to the WCB on May 29, 2020 and provided details under separate correspondence dated June 2, 2020. The employer provided a summary of the events involving the worker, beginning with the November 5, 2014 incident between the worker and a coworker and noting the worker was terminated on November 24, 2014.

On June 17, 2020, the WCB contacted the worker to discuss their claim. The worker confirmed the incident that occurred in November 2014 and noted they had not worked since that time. The WCB asked the worker if they felt their work caused or increased their mental health issues to which the worker responded they felt they were terminated from their position due to their mental illness. The worker then clarified their belief that their work caused their mental health symptoms to increase and as a result, they were wrongfully terminated. The WCB explained to the worker the criteria for a claim for stress to be accepted by the WCB and advised the worker that circumstances such as experiencing a difficult, demanding or unpleasant boss or coworkers and/or clients, were not considered compensable. As such, the WCB advised the worker their claim was not acceptable. A formal decision letter was provided to the worker on the same date.

The worker's representative submitted additional medical evidence to the WCB on August 16, 2021 and requested the WCB review the material. The first document submitted was a July 9, 2015 Psychological Consultation Report, prepared as the result of the worker's referral. The treating psychologist made recommendations with respect to the worker's employment, noting that as the worker had "…notable deficits in cognitive processing speed…", any employer would need to allow the worker extra time to complete tasks. Low-stress environments with responsibilities that do not involve rapid processing of complex information was also recommended. Also submitted was a December 4, 2014 report from worker's treating family physician, directed to the worker's union, advising that due to a non-compensable medical condition, the worker experiences some discoordination, results in the worker being slower to perform some tasks and hampers their ability to deal with stress and frustration. The physician further noted that the worker had previous episodes where they tolerated stress up to a certain point, then "explodes", resulting in yelling, screaming and using abusive and profane language, appearing to be "out of control" and in a rage. It was noted that the worker was not physically violent during those episodes. The treating physician indicated that the worker was taking medication to help control these episodes but noted that the non-compensable medical condition made it difficult to correct or control the episodes. The physician provided they had no concerns with the worker returning to work and had no recommendations for any restrictions. The last document provided was a July 20, 2015 report from the family physician, again to the worker's union, providing a chronology of the worker's treatment, noting the worker had been on anti-depressant medication for a "prolonged period of time". The physician also noted that the worker contacted them on November 21, 2014, advising they had an incident with a coworker, and they had been asked to contact the physician. The worker was then referred to psychiatry in January 2015 and presented to a local hospital in February 2015, reporting worsening depression. The worker requested to be assessed, after which their medication was adjusted. The treating physician saw the worker in March 2015, noting at that time that the worker was not eating or sleeping and reported suicidal ideation, with no plan and had been referred for further psychiatric treatment. The physician further noted that medication and counselling had improved the worker's condition but noted that the worker's depression was likely permanent. On August 23, 2021, the WCB advised the worker the new information had been reviewed but there would be no change to the earlier decision their claim was not acceptable.

The worker requested reconsideration of the WCB's decision to the Review Office on October 19, 2021. In their submission, the worker provided further copies of reports previously provided from their family physician and psychologist. In addition, the worker noted that they had previously taken a leave of absence from their workplace in 2011 due to a depressive incident, which the employer was aware of and further noted that after an increase in their depression due to the incident with their coworker in November 2014, they were terminated from their employment. The worker stated that their claim should be accepted and that they should be entitled to benefits.

The Review Office determined on November 25, 2021, the worker's claim was not acceptable. The Review Office found the information provided by the worker included issues that are employment-related matters, which are specifically excluded from the definition of an accident under the WCB's legislation and accordingly, the worker's claim is not acceptable.

The worker filed an appeal with the Appeal Commission on April 17, 2025 and a hearing was arranged.

Reasons

Applicable Legislation and Policy

The Appeal Commission and its panels are bound by the provisions of The Workers Compensation Act (the “Act”), regulations under the Act and the policies established by the WCB's Board of Directors. The provisions of the Act in effect as of the date of the worker’s accident are applicable. Section 4(1) of the Act provides that where a worker suffers personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment, compensation shall be paid. The Act defines “accident” in Section 1(1) as follows:

a chance event occasioned by a physical or natural cause, and includes 

(a) a wilful and intentional act that is not the act of the worker, 

(b) any 

(i) event arising out of, and in the course of, employment, or 

(ii) thing that is done and the doing of which arises out of, and in the course of, employment, and 

(c) an occupational disease, 

and as a result of which a worker is injured.

The WCB has established Policy 44.05, Arising Out of and in the Course of Employment (the “Policy”) that focuses on the reasoning process the WCB uses to determine whether an accident arose out of and in the course of employment. The Policy states, in part:

In determining whether a worker's accident arose in the course of employment, the WCB generally focuses on evidence regarding the time and location of the accident. If the event(s) that caused the worker's injury occurred during work, at a place where the worker is reasonably expected to be, the accident arose in the course of employment.

The WCB has also established Policy 44.05.30 Adjudication of Psychological Injuries (the “Psychological Injuries Policy”) to outline how the WCB will decide claims for psychological injury. The Psychological Injuries Policy in effect as of the date of accident confirms that a psychological injury claim is decided in the same way as claims for physical injuries. The WCB will determine whether there was an accident arising out of and in the course of employment and then, if so, whether the worker sustained an injury, and if so, whether the injury was caused by the accident. The Psychological Injuries Policy specifically outlines the exclusion of psychological injuries because of burn-out or the daily pressures or stressors of work because those pressures or stressors do not fall within the definition of accident, as there is no chance event, no wilful and intentional act, and no traumatic event. The Psychological Injuries Policy also sets out that “Discipline, promotion, demotion, transfer or other employment related matters are specifically excluded from the definition of accident.”

Worker’s Position

The worker was present at the hearing, supported by their family members. The worker made an oral submission to the panel and relied upon prior written submissions to the WCB and the Review Office. The worker provided testimony through answers to questions posed to them by members of the appeal panel.

The worker’s position is that the evidence supports a finding that the worker sustained a psychological injury as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of their employment, and therefore the worker’s claim is acceptable. The worker submitted that the evidence supports the finding that the injury was caused by a wilful and intentional act of a coworker. The worker also states that the accident was an acute reaction to a traumatic event, as the events with their coworker caused them significant psychological distress.

The worker submits that their coworker was bullying them and creating an unhealthy work environment, which led to an aggravation of their pre-existing mental health concerns. The worker states the employer was aware of their diagnosis of depression and the coworker’s actions toward them caused an increase in their symptoms.

The evidence of the worker was that the coworker’s actions and behaviour led to a verbal request by the worker to be transferred to another department. The worker states that they were not provided assistance by their employer and this led to a further deterioration of their mental state and an angry outburst which ultimately led to their termination.

The worker is seeking that their claim be accepted.

Employer’s Position

The employer did not participate in the appeal.

Analysis

The issue under appeal is whether the worker’s claim is acceptable. For the appeal to succeed, the panel would have to find that the worker sustained injury, in this case, a psychological injury, as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of their employment. As outlined in the reasons that follow, that panel was not able to make such a finding and therefore the worker’s appeal is denied.

The worker’s claim arose from a series of incidents described by the worker. The panel reviewed the information provided by the worker in relation to the alleged bullying and harassment by their coworker, which the worker alleges amounted to an accident that caused them injury.

The worker indicated that the coworker was demeaning, aggressive and verbally degrading to fellow employees and the worker. The worker’s evidence is that in November 2014 there was an incident, whereby the coworker was again speaking in a demeaning manner to a different employee, which led to the worker yelling and swearing at the coworker. A Respectful Workplace Advisor completed an investigation which included interviewing multiple witnesses, and which resulted in a suspension for the worker.

In considering the worker’s claim for a psychological injury, the panel applied the Psychological Injuries Policy, which requires the panel to determine firstly, whether there is evidence of an accident as defined in the Act. The Act defines an accident as “…a chance event occasioned by a physical or natural cause” that includes a “wilful and intentional act that is not the act of the worker”, any “event arising out of, and in the course of, employment, or thing that is done and the doing of which arises out of, and in the course of, employment” and “an occupational disease”. In addition, the panel considered that the Psychological Injuries Policy confirms that any change in respect of employment, such as promotion, transfer, demotion, lay-off or termination cannot be found to be an accident.

The Psychological Injuries Policy also contains Administrative Guidelines, which further clarify the application of these provisions. The worker argued that the injury was caused by a “wilful and intentional act” by a coworker, and also argued that they sustained injury as a result of an occupational disease, specifically an acute reaction to a traumatic event. The Administrative Guidelines state that a wilful and intentional act is one which involves malice or bad faith, and that malice or bad faith will be found when the person who committed the act actually knew, or a reasonable person would know, the act was offensive or objectionable to the worker. A two-step process is used by WCB in claims of this nature. First, the WCB will consider whether the act occurred as described by the worker, and then, if it did, whether the act was wilful and intentional. The panel finds the Administrative Guidelines helpful in providing assistance in determining if a wilful and intentional act occurred given the evidence provided by the worker and found within the file.

In this instance there were witnesses to the events and an investigation was conducted by an independent party regarding the incident in November. The WCB contacted another coworker who was a witness to the behaviour of the coworker in question. The evidence of the witness was that they could not recall the worker being bullied or discriminated against. The witness stated that the coworker and the worker both engaged in “back and forth banter” and that both parties equally engaged in the inappropriate conduct. Furthermore, the evidence before the panel is that the employer was not made aware of any bullying towards the worker and there were no reported incidents made by the worker. The panel accepts that the worker believes that they were treated unfairly and that their coworker’s conduct was the cause of their outburst, however the evidence before the panel is that the independent investigation of the incident led to the worker being disciplined, which is supported by the evidence of the witness that both parties were involved in the inappropriate conduct.

For claims relating to an acute reaction to a traumatic event, as a kind of occupational disease, the Administrative Guidelines set out that acute refers to the severity of the reaction, whenever it occurs. The definition of “traumatic event” comes from WCB’s Policy 44.20, Disease/General, which sets out that a traumatic event “is an identifiable physical or psychological occurrence, occurs in an identifiable time frame that is normally of brief duration, is not a series of minor occurrences, and is capable of causing serious physical or psychological harm consistent with the acute reaction.” The panel notes that these events will typically be deeply disturbing or distressing to the worker. Further, the panel is satisfied that even if the worker did have an acute reaction to the workplace incident, the events described by the worker do not amount to a traumatic event as defined by the Act and policies, and as such the panel finds that the evidence does not establish an occupational disease as an accident in this case. The panel acknowledges that there is evidence that the worker has a prior psychological condition which the worker related to the workplace incident, however the panel relies on the evidence of the worker’s treating physician from July 20, 2015, who stated that the worker’s symptoms would be lifelong and may flare from time to time.

Having reviewed the totality of the evidence submitted in support of the worker’s claim, the panel is not able to find that the incidents and events, whether considered individually or cumulatively amount to an accident as defined in the Act. Having determined there was not an accident, the panel was not required to and did not make any determination as to whether there is a causal relationship between the worker’s psychological condition and the incidents and experiences at work.

On the basis of the evidence before the panel and on the standard of a balance of probabilities, we find that the claim is not acceptable as we cannot establish that there was any accident as defined in the Act. Therefore, the worker’s claim is not acceptable.

Panel Members

R. Lemieux Howard, Presiding Officer
J. Peterson, Commissioner
M. Payette, Commissioner

Recording Secretary, J. Lee

R. Lemieux Howard - Presiding Officer
(on behalf of the panel)

Signed at Winnipeg this 3rd day of October, 2025